Referable question of law requires proper framing; factual findings on partnership registration defeated the revenue's reference request.

Questions proposed under section 256(2) were held not to disclose any referable question of law because the controversy depended on the Tribunal's factual finding that the partnership deed recognised Prem Lata as a one-third partner and that her alleged representation of a Hindu undivided family did not justify of registration. As the proposed questions were not clearly and properly framed to capture the factual context, the matter was treated as one of factual appreciation rather than statutory interpretation. The High Court was therefore correct in refusing to call for a reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions proposed by the revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were referable questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal had found that the partnership deed showed Prem Lata as a partner entitled to a one-third share and that the objection based on her representing a Hindu undivided family did not justify refusal of registration. The proposed questions were held to be framed in a manner that did not clearly and properly set out the facts, and the controversy was treated as one turning on the factual appreciation already recorded by the Tribunal rather than on a referable question of law.

Conclusion: The questions sought to be referred were not questions of law fit for reference, and the High Court correctly refused to call for a reference.

---